Garrett Rooney wrote:
Finally, and I hate to say this because it may very well be just a cultural difference between projects the Glasgow developers have worked on and the way things work in ASF projects I'm familiar with, I think it's disturbing that all answers to questions concerning this proposal have been discussed in private and fed back to us through a single person. I don't see a community of individuals here, I see a collection of companies working to bring a new project to the ASF because they can benefit from the brand, and while that can certainly change with time its combination with the other problems means I can't vote in favor of the proposal.
One reason for this may be that many of the issues & questions raised have been about the ownership and control of the specification and not the glasgow project itself. I accept that a project whose goal is the implementation of a specification must necessarily be judged with reference to that specification. However, that not all the developers of a particular implementation of a specification feel qualified to comment on legal issues relating to that specification, or to the processes that govern it, should not be taken as implying that they do not participate as individuals within their project.
Questions for the protocol group may well require discussion and agreement amongst the members of that group and as those members do not correspond to the members of the glasgow proposal this list would not be an appropriate place for that discussion. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
